Politics

The state Supreme Court on Thursday declined - for now - to take up lower court orders blocking Wisconsin's voter ID law, the latest sign the law likely will not be in place for the Nov. 6 presidential election. »Read Full Article

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

Yeah i'm pretty sure milwaukeevoter was being sarcastic as well. There's only two liberal commies left on the bench (Abrahamson and Bradley) and then Crooks, who is currently considered to be on the liberal wing, but in the grand scheme of things is really a moderate conservative. The Court will certainly accept review when it's procedurally proper to, and will likely overturn the trial courts' decision by the expected 4-3 partisan split.

Yea, voter fraud occurred about 3 times in Flordia, and came out to about .0001% of the voters. They found out the purged names of "illegal aliens were actually purged names of real live citizens. They have proven in Flordia that voter fraud is an urban legend, and not a problem at all. I hope the purged voters sue the state when they are not allowed to vote, I sure would.

@badolddaysAfter an election is complete and voters are long gone from the polls, no study or analysis of votes post-election can independently verify that the person who actually voted truly matched the person on the voter rolls. Therefore, a claim that voter fraud is merely just an "urban legend" is disingenuous and unsubstantiated.

How does someone "sound young" in a blog? As long as you are so fond of dredging up information from the deep, dark past; try this. Which state had the largest number of KKK members back in the 1920s? Try Indiana.

By the way, all those Jim Crow law states have been reliably voting Republican since Nixon's "southern strategy.."

After an election is complete and voters are long gone from the polls, no study or analysis of votes post-election can independently verify that the person who actually voted truly matched the person on the voter rolls. Therefore, a claim of "VERY little true voter fraud" is disingenuous and unsubstantiated.

If waht you describe happened in any significant numbers, we'd know about it. People going around, voting as others would "use up" the votes of others who would then be deied their vote and complain. In other cases, the real voter would get there first and the sham voter would be caught when they tried to vote under that name.

Poll workers report alomost no such incidents, suggesting almost no voter fraud of the kind you describe.

@360guyYou are assuming that all registered voters show up and vote - which obviously doesn't happen. Even in the well-publicized June 5 recall election turnout was only 57.8% ... leaving 42.2% no-show votes potentially "up for grabs". What cannot be independently verified post-election is if an imposter voter voted in place of a registered no-show voter. Because this cannot be independently verified post election, no one can make claims regarding the extent of voter fraud.

I'm not suggesting all voters show up. We all know that doesn't happen. But if there was anything more than rare voter fraud of the type you describe there old be reports of imposters caught in the way I describe. Some of them would get lucky, but others wouldn't and there would be reports. We have legions of poll watchers desperate to show exactly that kind of fraud, yet we hear nothing. It doesn't happen because anyone motivated enough to sway an election through that kind of fraud knows it would take dozens of people and months of planning. The very people capable of the effort know it isn't worth the effort.

@360guyPlanning can be done to greatly mitigate the risk of imposter voter being caught. No-show voter lists are available. Don't forget there was a mass mailing post cards calling out no-show voters prior to the June 5 recall election.

Further, poll watchers will not be able to observe imposter voter fraud unless the legions of poll watcher know the identity of everyone casting a vote (in lieu of a photo ID) to call out imposter voters.

There is no way to prove vote fraud post-election. It's impossible to prove. So the dems then believe, since vote fraud has never been reported en masse the conclusion is that vote fraud must not occur. But we cannot even detect it if it does occur, so how do you reach the conclusion that no fraud occurs?

The folks who want voter ID because they "feel" that there is widespread voter fraud remind me of a certain old story. Guy is wearing a clove of garlic around his neck. Friend asks why he is doing that. Guy answers--to keep the elephants away. Friend says: "but there aren't any elephants within 2000 miles of here. Guy says: "see, its working." There is no empirical evidence to support a claim of systemic and widespread voter fraud, yet the demand for voter ID grows stronger. Could there be something more nefarious afoot? A hidden agenda perhaps?

If your health insurance premiums went up by that much, and your insurance is provided by your employer; then do what you conservatives keep telling teachers and public workers to do----go get a different job.

After an election is complete and voters are long gone from the polls, no study or analysis of votes post-election can independently verify that the person who actually voted truly matched the person on the voter rolls. Therefore, a claim of three total instances of voter fraud is disingenuous and unsubstantiated.

@serasoomaWe can argue all we like about if UFO's (or Sasquatch, or the Loch Ness monster ...) really exist, but here's an undeniable fact we do know: voter fraud has already been proven to exist. It's out there. What we don't know is the true extent of voter fraud, despite claims stating otherwise.

Or how about this Republican effort to find voter fraud that comes up empty - as it always does... http://www.startribune.com/politics/171009711.html?page=2&c=y&refer=yLet me know when you find anything to back up your rhetoric, ButtonHook.

@buttonhook - I agree. Vote fraud has been found all over the country. So, does this make election fraud a 'widespread' problem? Seems like it to me. Also, we will never be able to know who is voting for whom since we don't ask for an id. As I mentioned earlier in post, you cannot detect vote fraud if you just simply don't want to detect it (which is the way it is set up today).

not what I said Millwi - when you go to the polls to vote for your candidate you show them who you are. When I go to the polls, I show them who I am. And when my neighbor goes to the polls, she shows them who she is. It's not difficult, Millwi. It really isn't. I never said I want to know who votes for whom, but that does remind of the time when we recalled a certain Senator from Green Bay, and the liberals INSISTED upon seeing the names on the recall petition. When teachers, firefighters, police officers, city municipality workers, judges, etc... insisted upon reviewing the recall petitions, I figured to be in for: a speeding ticket for me and my kid, an F on my kid's next report card, no response to my next house fire, sewerage back-up in my basement, and an occupier on my front porch. See now I'm getting as paranoid as peacetoall.

Anyone want to chip in so we can go out and get HareBear a case of tinfoil so he can out it on the ceiling and make a few hats with it. His fixation on voter fraud is making him even more dysfunctional.

dirtyheatThis Nov 6 will be a great opportunity for conservatives to get out there and take some pictures of those busloads of illegals at the polls, maybe file some specific complaints with the DA. I'd love to see some real evidence of voter fraud.

@bbSince you are all about "real evidence", there should be no issues if someone also asks for "real evidence" independently confirming that the person who wants to vote matches the person on the voter rolls before a ballot is handed out.